Thursday, August 13, 2009

Gay Marriage seems inevitable. While California's Proposition 8 has temporarily called a halt in that State's issuance of new gay marriage licenses, existing gay marriages are valid, and inevitably the courts (the elites favorite tool for forcing social change) will create Gay Marriage across the land. Likely, as a result of a Supreme Court 5-4 decision with Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens (or their replacements by Obama) against Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. A five-four decision is as good as nine-zero decision, as far as being legally binding. In every other Western nation, gay marriage is either the law of the land, or the forces pushing it unstoppable. This despite popular opposition, because the modern post-War era has produced fabulous amounts of wealth for middle-men like George Soros or David Geffen, or Warren Buffett, who then use their vast amounts of wealth to push policies that trump the interests of ordinary persons. This is true culturally and socially as well as economically. Indeed the ability of elites to routinely trump the interests of the populace is one of the key factors in the rising anger and pressure-cooker atmosphere all across the West, absent the calming factor of sustained economic growth and good times.

A Wall Street Journal Editorial notes how a federal lawsuit has been filed to invalidate Proposition 8 and other traditional marriage laws. Regardless of the merits of the suit and defense of laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, it seems clear that the moneyed, Gentry Liberals that Joel Kotkin suggests drives most of the Democratic Party and make up most of the nations wealthiest individuals (being concentrated in finance, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and uber-financiers like Soros and Buffett) will have their way on this. As they have had, so far, their way on Cap and Trade, the ObamaCare proposals, and the stimulus bill. This is essentially the coastal elites having their way over everyone else, using the Supreme Court to do it. Kotkin warns this will have severe consequences politically, and he's right.

However, that's an issue for another post. When, not if, Gay Marriage comes, what will happen to marriage as it's defined, and what will society look like? I expect the following ills to accompany gay marriage and continue to wash away social bonds:

Polygamy will be legalized.

Marriage will be perceived as "gay," for Muslims and other non-mainstream people, or for the very, very rich by most people.

Increasing amounts of new marriages will be either mostly polygamous or gay, while marriage itself declines.

Men will increasingly co-habitate instead of marry, with fragile, chaotic, and short-lived relationships characterizing "family" for most Americans.

"Gay" norms of sexuality, i.e. non-monogamous conduct, will define non-polygamous marriage, driving acceptance of marriage among straight, non-polygamous men to near zero for new marriages

Women and children will be regarded by most men as something they are at best unconcerned with and at worst, openly hostile to, given the new marriage environment

Most children in the US will be born to single mothers, and single motherhood will define how children are raised, with the accompanying social pathologies found in that environment

UPDATE! check out these lunatics: here where two people who should NEVER have sex (aging hippies) talk about reprogramming jealousy. Yeah, that will work.

Obviously, not all of these will happen in an instant-on light-switch type of process, but the trends are un-mistakeable. Together, they threaten to remake America within a few generations into a combination of Morocco and Tijuana and Pacific Heights. With most of the nation resembling the first two instead of the latter.

From the Wall Street Journal Article some passages that deserve quoting in full:

If marriage is redefined, its connection to organic bodily union—and thus to procreation—will be undermined. It will increasingly be understood as an emotional union for the sake of adult satisfaction that is served by mutually agreeable sexual play. But there is no reason that primarily emotional unions like friendships should be permanent, exclusive, limited to two, or legally regulated at all. Thus, there will remain no principled basis for upholding marital norms like monogamy.

A veneer of sentiment may prevent these norms from collapsing—but only temporarily. The marriage culture, already wounded by widespread divorce, nonmarital cohabitation and out-of-wedlock childbearing will fare no better than it has in those European societies that were in the vanguard of sexual “enlightenment.” And the primary victims of a weakened marriage culture are always children and those in the poorest, most vulnerable sectors of society.

Candid and clear-thinking advocates of redefining marriage recognize that doing so entails abandoning norms such as monogamy. In a 2006 statement entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” over 300 lesbian, gay, and allied activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers—including Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and prominent Yale, Columbia and Georgetown professors—call for legally recognizing multiple sex partner (“polyamorous”) relationships. Their logic is unassailable once the historic definition of marriage is overthrown.

Is this a red herring? This week’s Newsweek reports more than 500,000 polyamorous households in the U.S.

Along with the Re-Norming of Marriage, the changes wrought by Gay Marriage will reshape the social landscape of America in profound ways. Intensifying some trends, and obliterating others.

First, Polygamy will be legalized. As seen above, feminists, gay activists, educators, lawyers, and community organizers, what Kotkin describes as "Gentry Liberals" are determined to have their way on this as well as with Gay Marriage. Legally, it seems inexplicable to allow marriage to be gay but not polygamous, and as Mark Steyn points out in jurisdiction where Gay Marriage has been the law of the land for long has polygamy remained outlawed. Polygamy is de-facto recognized in Great Britain and Canada (where Muslim men may claim welfare benefits for their four wives) and in the Netherlands the law of the land. As Steyn points out, there will be many more takers for Polygamy than Gay Marriage.

Last year, Aly Hindy, a Scarborough imam, told the Toronto Star that he’d performed 30 polygamous marriages just in the last few weeks.

Legalized polygamy and ostentatious displays by gays in gay weddings (what other kind you ask could there be?) will rapidly move marriage in the cultural sphere to "gay" and "Muslim" and for the rich. The rich can afford huge spreads, gigantic parties and ceremonies, and would remain both enamored of class distinctions and able to bear the costs of marriage (i.e. money makes it a bad deal for divorcing). In the otherwise forgettable "Nanny Diaries" the prospective Nanny (Scarlett Johanssen) lunches with the older, married woman thinking of hiring her (Laura Linney). A friend of the Linney character stops by, and the two commiserate on her recent divorce, which put the luxurious life of penthouse apartments in Manhattan and Cape Cod "Summer Homes" out of reach. Hyper-fabulous gay weddings, with the usual distasteful (to straight men) exhibitionist display, will rapidly push weddings and marriage into the "gay" category like Broadway. Lost in time, there was a moment when Broadway was not automatically considered gay and showtunes were popular among straight men. Straight men avoid like the plague any noticeably "gay" institution.

The non-acceptance of marriage as an institution for average, middle class Americans will simply accelerate. Kay Hymnowitz of City-Journal has called the marriage gap will continue to grow, as men find the institution itself defined by polygamous Muslims, gays, and the rich (but not hyper-rich like say, Paul McCartney). Hymnowitz argues that the gap comes educated, middle and upper class women having a "mission" to prepare their kids for college and success, but cites no evidence to back that assertion up. There certainly is a sizeable gap between blue-collar, working class White women and middle/upper class White women in marriage rates. But it's just as likely that rather than "the mission" the relative attractive quality of men (to entice women into marriage) is greater among upper and middle class women than in the working class.

In other words, the "script" that Hymnowitz asserts women follow, is marrying a man who might plausibly be "enough" of an Alpha Male, socially dominant, "cool/hip," and impressive to her friends and social circle, and critically, the supply of those men greater in middle/upper class circles, rather than child-success preparing. Delayed childbirth and marriage ages creeping upward are a factor in middle and upper class marriage, so this might just as well explain the marriage gap.

There is a limited supply of handsome lawyers, doctors, "venture capitalists" (ala the film "the Wedding Crashers") staffers in political offices, NGOs, and the like (think "Mr. Darcy" as a "respectable, but independently wealthy, human rights lawyer" in the film "Bridget Jones Diary.") These are the men "suitable" for marriage, i.e. the bride will not suffer embarrassment or humiliation to be seen marrying the man, and will be willing to be "off the market" for a period of time at a minimum as the wife of her husband. Women already complain about the supply of "good men" (i.e. top-rank Alpha males willing to commit) in upper and middle class circles. Anything that further reduces the supply, and gay marriage with polygamy making marriage irrevocably "gay" and "Muslim" will do it  creates far fewer "good men" and pushes even middle and upper class women to co-habitate with Alpha men rather than marry an undesirable "beta male."

Co-habitation, as noted in the link above, and also here and also here and the Heritage Foundation "Map of the Family" here is an unmitigated disaster. Co-habitation (unlike places such as Sweden and Iceland) is generally fragile, with fathers or men bowing out frequently, and much poverty, abuse and unhappiness for children en-meshed in co-habitation:

[Click Image to enlarge.]

Co-habitation was clearly on the rise before the economic melt-down. May 2009 is "National Cohabitation Month" and sites like "Alternatives to Marriage" which extols both Polyamory and Gay Marriage extol cohabitation as well as other arrangements in lieu of traditional marriage. Culturally, there is a great acceptance of co-habitation as "better" than marriage, and idolization of rich celebrities such as Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt (who can afford it) helps move it along. Of course, co-habitation is still relatively minor, about 10% of all marriages, however from the link here we can see that this effect is not the same across all age cohorts:

[Click Image to Enlarge]

As you can see, the trends in the younger generation are not good. Increasingly, co-habitation seems to be the norm, for the younger generation. The older generation probably sways the national average, as many more older women are married. The graph below is a crude but useful estimation to see how the larger group of older women, who were mostly married at one point (I crudely subtracted the "Never Married" from the total age cohort to arrive at the married figure, others may refine the numbers to a better point, but you can see the large trends) which tends to make the growing acceptance of co-habition among younger women of all races better than it actually is.

[Click Image to Enlarge]

Along with Co-habitation, comes greater acceptance of "gay norms" for marriage, and indeed relationships in general. From Television shows like Mercy to movies, the media, and social trends, casual sex with others in a relationship is not viewed as wrong, at least insofar as female infidelity is concerned. Male infidelity is viewed as situation-dependent. A John Edwards or Bill Clinton or Tony Villaraigosa or Gavin Newsome or Bobby Pitino , with the "correct" politics and Big Man demeanor, don't face social sanctions and condemnation. Those on the wrong side of politics, or with non-Alpha Big Man demeanor, face social condemnation (Mark Sanford, for one).

Gay norms of marriage, and the growing push in Hollywood to make marriage "gay" as possible, makes co-habitation a better deal for men versus marriage, since they can walk out at any time, and often do. Particularly if there are no children, and in states without "palimony" statutes or court decisions. Some have suggested that beta males will be happy to accept "Kitchen Bitch" status, that is a care-taker, dependent, and often-cheated upon house-husband, but the relative fragility of co-habitation, and the growing number of women in younger age cohorts who form households with another person co-habitating instead of marrying seems to suggest otherwise. Certainly the closest analogue to the US, the United Kingdom, has not seen the growth of "Kitchen Bitches" or Mr. Mom house-husbands who passively accept wives cheating, but rather the huge decline of traditional marriage and chaotic co-habitation.

These changes, marriage as "gay" (or Muslim and polygamous) will leave most men, particularly the backbone of the United States, the beta males who are in skilled professions, engineering, skilled blue collar jobs, and the like with no investment or incentive to become invested in the larger society. Women, and children, will be seen as someone else's concern, or matters for the government. This has been the case in the UK, where the disintegration of traditional marriage at all but the upper levels of society has led to most men becoming profoundly disinterested in the fate of women and children. Indeed, fatherly involvement in co-habitating arrangements, is less than for married fathers, and often non-existent when couples break up as they do far more often than married couples.

This will make all but the wealthy, born into de-facto single motherhood families. Even with the biological father present, there is little to tie him to the mother if relationships are amorphous and ever-changing, as Barbara Ehrenreich once lovingly described her vision of the future. The various social ills, besetting England, particularly youth crime (of all races, not just Pakistani youths) which makes the UK resemble "Clockwork Orange" more than "Goodbye Mr. Chips" is certain to bedevil the US over time.

The most powerful institutions in America are the Media and Hollywood, at least as far as shaping the culture. Religious attendance is down, across the board, for Catholics and Protestants alike. Most people take their values from those depicted in Hollywood and the media, particularly women, since both focus on the female audience and in doing so chase away male viewers. America seems lurching towards a new era of relationships between men and women, one characterized by mistrust, vastly different goals, and vastly different value systems.

Women, and the cultural institutions aimed at them, aided by moneyed elites such as George Soros or David Geffen, seem intent on making marriage and relationships "gay" and the ability of money to trump votes and the interests of most people seems unchallenged. I certainly expect a Supreme Court decision legalizing Gay Marriage across the United States.

But women can't force men to marry them under "gay" norms. Indeed, few of the men willing to be married (the George Sodini desperate for female contact types) under those conditions would be attractive in the first place. Sodini was in fact able to get dates. But no woman was willing to sleep with him, let alone marry him. The few men willing to accept "Kitchen Bitch" status, ironically, will be unwanted by those desiring a house-husband and numerous Alpha lovers.

Where does this leave men and women? For a few lucky Alpha PUA (Pick Up Artist) types, heaven. Women available, in relationships or outside them. Everywhere, all the time. For the rest of men, outside the Sodini types, unable to find women to sleep with them, occasional sex, intermittent co-habitating, chaotic and breakable relationships, with perhaps one or two children by women they never see anymore. Their children, merely distant facts in their lives, like the capital of Mongolia. A lucky few Alpha men who are upper class, or upper class with enough money/status/prestige to be considered Alpha, will marry, and have relatively stable relationships with no divorce and little cheating, given the stakes of the Hamptons Beach House (and cost of splitting a modest fortune in half).

For Women, most will be able to attract at least for a while, the Alpha men they crave. For women seeking to maximize sexual opportunities, this is heaven. Some Alpha men may live with them for a while, or they may attract some Beta men on the downward slope of their attractiveness to co-habitate. There will be little to fix these relationships in stone, however, and the least pressure will fracture them leaving each partner single and separate. Women will likely get some child support earnings in the face of co-habitating splits, but will face, under large uncertainty of parentage, increased legal challenges and DNA paternity tests, by men uninvested in them or society. Alimony, as women start to out-earn their co-habitating partners, can even break against them, and it's likely that as it does women will press for changes in the system. Most women who are at least moderately attractive, will have no trouble in attracting male attention, but keeping male investment in themselves and their children will become increasingly difficult to impossible with each successive age cohort.

Particularly given the college gap (more women than men attend), and attendant earnings gap, with some professions being profoundly feminized, several factors will negatively affect both men and women. Women, in feminized professions, such as medicine, law, and government, will compete heavily over the few men in such professions that are "Alpha" while the men in the professions who are not, will be regarded as "gay" and treated as sexually invisible. For most women, this means finding partners in a bar or other impromptu social gathering, with the collapse of mediating mate-finding institutions like Churches and neighborhood groups. This means, essentially, selecting on the hottest PUA in the bar, for most college educated women professionals. Which will price most men out, most of the time. Ordinary men who are college educated will increasingly opt out of competition in which they mostly lose in favor of porn and hobbies and "bromances" or seek women abroad by expatriate opportunties. A few will look to PUA gurus to become PUA themselves in the ruthless bar/club competition.

For the increasing majority of men NOT college educated, either a ruthless entrepreneurial path, which produces a few winners and a lot of losers, or chav-style brutality, will be the norm for being successful with women. In other words, Gordon Ramsay or the typical soccer yob. With lots of "mate-ism" (working class bromance) and macho displays.

That PUA in general are part of the popular culture, and can make substantial livings off of teaching men how to approach and romance women, is itself a big red flag. Men don't pay thousands of dollars for classes and guided instruction if they are not desperate. Indeed, there is a huge social shame among men who don't have a girlfriend, or wife, and the stigma of "loserdom" associated with that status, and the desperation, is a sign that the rules of society that many men grew up on, simply don't work. If PUA can make a living on teaching men what most of their fathers did without much thinking, that is approach women and be successful, or keep a relationship with one, that very market is a sign of deep trouble, like armed bodyguards for middle class people in kidnap-crazy Central America.

The blaming of Sodini's massacre in Pittsburgh on PUA has already begun. "Nice guy must die." Well, he must. And he is. Nice guys only exist when society creates them. In the neo-Darwinian struggle for sex and relationships based on "survival of the hottest" in the Bar on Friday night, male investment, protection, and support simply does not exist. Contrary to the article, Sodini got his ideas about women from being unable to form and keep a relationship with them, and observing other men who possessed simply social dominance, be successful.

America's danger is not Sodini or Cho type massacres. Though those are bound to become more frequent as social cohesion fails to leash the lunatic and insane. It is rather a whole class of men becoming Chavs or opting out, going abroad, or watching porn. This may look like a female paradise, but women also lose, since they get no male investment on their downside. Cougars and such may get transient male interest, but won't find in a society where relationships and marriage are "gay" any offers by men even remotely attractive and compatible with themselves.

The only hope, indeed for all of Western Society, is culture and entertainment that push a message of traditional morality, and the advantages to women of fidelity and faithfulness in relationships. Including comfort and companionship as they age, a defender and protector through life, and the willingness if need be, to lay down their lives for them. In the finale of the sadly cancelled "Life," the protagonist (Damien Lewis, "Band of Brothers") risks his life to save his female partner (Sarah Shahi). Because he loves her. It was as simple as that.

What America, and indeed the West, needs is more male-oriented entertainment with that cultural message, that also appeals to women and shows them concretely the advantages of traditional marriage and culture. Not the least of which is that they are both independent and protected within that culture. Hollywood, dominated by near-Apex Alpha males, gays, and oriented towards a mostly female audience, is to sclerotic to accomplish this goal. We in the West who seek reform must pin our hopes (and make sure we guide its development) on new media, created outside of Hollywood, distributed through the internet. Aimed at the broadest audience and encapsulating traditional American and Western values.

Massachusetts got this temporary boost in marriage rates in 2004 due to the legalization of gay marriage. Probably a big portion of this bump was the out-of-state Gay Marriage Tourism effect. I.e. gay couples from the rest of the union making the pilgrimage there to have their ceremony. (The straight version of the same effect can be seen in Nevada and Hawaii's rates).

Anyways, despite this tourism bump, the slide in marriage rates is continuing in Mass. The apples-to-apples hetero marriage rate there is probably around 4.9 by now. That is a huge drop from 7.9 in only eighteen years.

Monogamy is not natural. Christian marriage has traditionally been a sacremental covenant that requires a man and woman to overcome their sinful natures and conform to God's law instead. Solomon had numerous wives and desribed the ideal wife as a woman of valor. Today's ministers do not have the intellect of a Solomon or the Apostle Paul. Most of them have decided to teach watered down pop psych crap instead of ancient wisdom. We live in a very strange time when the writings of a self proclaimed atheist and hedonist like Roissy are closer to traditional Christian teaching than what most pastors teach. If the west is to survive the church must grow a backbone. Do'in what comes naturally will lead us back to the stone age.

Well written and spot on, Whiskey. The only part I would disagree with is about men increasingly co-habituating. The government will make co-habitation equivalent to being married which will make co-habitation as problematic as marriage is now.

"This may look like a female paradise, but women also lose, since they get no male investment on their downside. Cougars and such may get transient male interest, but won't find in a society where relationships and marriage are "gay" any offers by men even remotely attractive and compatible with themselves."

I touched on this in my manifesto - the hypergamous paradise will turn out to be a hell for single women over 30 once society begins breaking down, because these women are overwhelmingly employed in healthcare, government, and other professions dependent on societal stability. They have no job skills outside of those fields, and no man will touch them because of their age and sexual history.

Thanks Ferdinand. I think men will certainly "touch" Cougars and so on, but companionate marriage will not be in the cards, at best chaotic and short-lived co-habitating. Which serves few, in the long run.

Co-habitation of course Anti is a mixed blessing for women as well. If and indeed women dominate College admission and graduation, and become significantly higher earners than men (something predicted by many extrapolating current trends), a lawyer or doctor or accountant cohabitating even briefly with a man with lesser income is vulnerable to palimony as well.

Canadian jurists are pushing that even further, ruling that those who have 'significant' relationships such as friendships but do not cohabitate have a call on a person's estate EVEN IF THEY LEAVE A WILL. I expect more of that here. Eventually that sort of thinking spills over into family law and such.

I don't see it out of the question that suing for "alienation of affection" by a co-habitating spouse, say a woman able to pay legal fees, leads to precendent establishing that in co-habitation which is a two edged sword against women as well as for them.

There is a strong argument to made that traditional values and morality is the better deal for women and men alike.

"and become significantly higher earners than men (something predicted by many extrapolating current trends)"

I said it in the comments of the previous post and will say it again, the effect will be very short-lived.

The US is coasting along on its previous manufacturing-based economic success, which is why the professions you mentioned and others like them are valued as highly absent continued US manufacturing prowess nowadays.

A country of only lawyers, doctors and accountants (and similar jobs which do not have any physical output you can export) will soon enough decline into 3rd world status, making all degrees but the ones from the most prestigious colleges (ivy league) essentially worthless.

Doctors and lawyers who do not work for the rich (and few will get the opportunity due to the fewer rich people) will make a pittance, barely more than a blue-collar worker.

So if divestment in society drives men to completely abandon manufacturing, everyone will lose economically. Female economic power will exist no longer than the blink of an eye, the instant we pass the inflection point and head downwards.

Your posts are a great impetus to speak to my sons about these matters.

One thing missing from your analysis: you keep referring to marriage being tagged a gay/muslim thing. Though Christianity has lost 95+% of its cultural authority in the U.S., there is a residual core of serious Christians who will never abandon traditional marriage (an estimate might be Barna's 7% who hold to a "Biblical Worldview").

What's the time frame on all this? Around 40% of the population is still making marriage work. Any clue on low it will get?

My guess, Grim, is that it will be seen in the next 20 years or so. The real tidal wave is coming, because of the education/earning skew in favor of women that Whiskey describes here.

That effect will dramatically reduce the marriage rate, unless women decide to marry un-hypergamously. That *may* happen, as I have argued elsewhere, if polyandry comes into vogue. If polyandry does not come into vogue, however, women will generally *not* "marry down" and there simply will not be enough men "above" them for many of them to marry. So marriage rates will *have* to decline in that scenario.

As I say, unless polyandry becomes common, we should see marriage rates decline a lot within the next 10-20 years. The divorce rate may not move much, but the # of people who are married will be much lower. In fact the divorce rate may improve (reduce) because the number of marriages is much lower, and the only ones getting married are the ones who are very good bets or who have a lot at stake so as to make divorce less appealing (as it is today among higher earning SWPLs who have the lowest divorce rates).

Grim -- It's hard to say what the trend will look like. As anonymous points out below, sustained economic hard times as the global economy tanks (if it does, and it looks like it) means the money that propped up the service economy and much of the "New Girl Order" can come crashing down. A sustained depression like that of 1873-79, or the 1930's, bringing back traditional marriage is another question (and an upcoming post). However looking at trends today, people 40+ are not changing much, nor are people in their thirties. It's younger people, in their twenties, where we see the change, and there are fewer of them (birth dearth) but they do behave differently it seems.

Nova -- I have the link to Dr. Helen's Polyandry interview on PJTV in my post. Take a look. The people there are not exactly attractive specimens of humanity. I think they could take up a collection from their neighbors to not only never have sex, ever, with anyone, but never ever be naked. I could only stand a few minutes of those fruitloops, but they did not seem winning exponents of their lifestyle to say the least.

I think Polyandry appeals to gay men most of all, rather than straight. For gay men they get children, a wife, and still have gay sex. I think polygamy is going to get far more takers as Mark Steyn suggests, and as Muslim men offer enticements (they cannot in the US at least abduct women) to women in polygamous marriages, including non-Muslim women, that will create a flashpoint with non-Muslim men.

Given the overall shortage of marriageable women in the US. Such things never end well.

The thought just struck me. This future "post-marriage but for the rich" culture is really a reversion to that of medieval Europe, which I think has been the historical norm through out most of human history.

In the medieval period, only the nobility had anything like what we call traditional marriage. The peasantry existed as serfs that supported the nobility in return for protection. The nobility regulated the sexual relations of the peasantry by using what was called the writ of fuck (this is where the word "fuck" come from).

It appears that Western society is creating a modern version of the medieval social structure.

I say these things not to justify these changes, but to put them within the proper historical perspective. The concept of "traditional" marriage and the life-long nuclear family is actually a relatively recent innovation in the context of human history and was co-relational with the Renaissance. This is the reason why most family names come from occupation descriptions (Smith, Miller, etc.) or are the "son of" (Johnson, Joesephson, etc.).

We won't be seeing any radically new social order that has never been around before. Hell, you can even look at a few countries today to see what the US may approximately be like in a few decades.

It all depends in the current cultural struggle.

If traditional morality wins, the US will resemble a 3rd world country which, thanks to its cultural and moral cohesion, has few social ills aside from its poverty. See: Azerbaijan, central Asian countries, Morocco etc.

If ultraliberals have their way, it will much more resemble "big man" third world countries, with most of the attendant social ills. See sub-Saharan Africa, Colombia, eastern Europe etc.

A comparison between the liberal and the conservative "underclass" should make this obvious.

Is _District 9_ an example of moviemaking spreading out into the Anglosphere. Peter Jackson and his New Zealand colleagues are helping the South African Production. The hero, Wikus Van der Merwe (the name used in the SA equivalent of a Polish or Irish joke) is a total beta who has somehow managed to marry the boss's hot daughter. I really liked this movie, but some of you may think it is too much liberal anti-corporate paranoia.

The weird thing about this is that the main reason people are pushing for recognition of gay marriage (spousal health benefits) is going to seriously conflict with poly-marriage. Will it be legal to discriminate against a woman with two dependent husbands? Is it legal now to discriminate in hiring based on how many dependents the employer will have to insure? I don't know, but if not it seems like a good way to get all of those 50 million people insured. They can literally get married to the State!

By the way, as I was typing this an ad came on for a new show called "Househusbands of Hollywood". Amazing, isn't it?

Gay marriage is not inevitable everywhere. It's currently legal in 6 states. It will almost definitely become legal in a few more (NY, NJ, CA) but after that it will be a fight. And our side has to be ready to kick ass.

Especially considering that the most precious pet minorities of the left are for the most part virulently anti-gay, and increasing in number.

It will be interesting to see how the left and liberals in general will change attitudes towards, say, hispanics once they have the numbers to seriously threaten gay marriage in states where it would normally be a shoe-in.

It seems rather unlikely that current trends will continue unless there's some new stupefying drug that dulls the pain of existence for most men, or some diversion that's personally rewarding. In a few debates with Betty Friedan S.M. Lipset observed that if males decided to put a stop to the progressive trends she was advocating they wouldn't face much difficulty. Moreover, he also pointed out that her advocacy of "the poor" wasn't productive since if the poor vote they usually vote conservatively. The idea is that if you're in a leaky boat you don't want anyone rocking out.

All told, I'd say that these observations imply your last ditch solution is a bit more likely than you indicate.

I mostly lurk but very much enjoy this blog and your commentary overall; I agree with the thrust of your argument that the current trends, including Gay Marriage are driving a decline in keeping marriage attractive to most men. I don't think though that marriage is going to end up being seen as a Muslim/Gay phenomenon exclusively. No matter what society at large does about marriage or how it markets marriage, groups like Orthodox Jews or Mormons or the Amish are not going to abandon the institution. What would probably be a clearer way to frame the situation is to say that marriage and those who desire it will be seen as fringe elements.

As is increasingly the case, female dominance of government will lead to the universal application of palimony-style laws. No man must be allowed to escape expropriation of his wealth and labor by women just because he refuses to marry. England is already considering this, if it has not already done so.

Polygamy is merely the nose of the camel when it comes to Islam. In addition to demanding recognition of Islamic marriage norms, the disintegration of culture will lead Muslims to ever bolder demands for the norming of Islamic social customs and the application of Sharia law, despite their moral repugnance.

"That is inconceivable. No social or legal institution in our society works like that; all such conflicts lead to double-standards in favor of women. By what means do you expect this to change?"

I don't think he means officially sanctioned consequences, he probably means problems which arise as inherent parts of co-habitation, and which can only be "fixed" (in favor of women, of course) so far.

Randian -- women are already getting sued for Palimony, and having to settle for substantial sums. Madonna, Christina Applegate, Charisma Carptenter, face substantial payouts to get out of their marriages, and IIRC a few female Hollywood producers also face big charges. Novaseeker had something on his blog about female lawyers facing large outlays after their cohabitation with lower earning guys who were "hot" but made little money dissolved.

There's a built-in mechanism to keep things that way: the interest of trial and divorce lawyers who can extract lots of money from breakups as money shifts to women. This includes of course, female lawyers themselves.

Randian -- women are already getting sued for Palimony, and having to settle for substantial sums.

I thought those were divorce settlements, not palimony.

A step in the right direction, though I wonder whether those sums are comparable to what men of similar financial means are ordered to pay. Looking at Charisma Carpenter's $300/month child support payment, I suspect not.

There is also the matter of mainstream (read: female-dominated) media has to say about the matter, which is always "it's bad for women and therefore wrong". It's never "women should be paying what men do" or "if it's wrong to do this women perhaps it's also wrong to do it to men".

Here has been talk about women with high salary and how they don't want less earning men.First: I don't think that it is important which one EARNS more but HOW MUCH this more earning person makes. There are lots of women who make more than their man but it does not bother them because the difference is not so BIG.

Secondly: I don't believe that majority of the CEO:s etc. will be women. Men have so big ´thrill to get to the top. And there is already talk about what to do with the decreasing number of boys in universities. Here in Finland some people have suggested that maby it would be good to have boys' schools again, where boys would be compared to other boys, not to girls.

And have you ever thought how much it hurst women, when they have to share their husband? Women don't want to share their husband because they don't want to share his ASSETS (time, money etc) with other women and their children. Jealousy is as common in areas, where it has been polygamy for generations, as it is in areas, where it has never existed.

And you know what? Saudi-Arabia is a place where polygamy exists. And do you know what ISLAMIC FEMINISTS want to do? Limit it. Give a woman right to repudiate her husband if she takes another wife. Polygamy has also been limited in other muslim areas immediately when women have got more power. You know why? Because it hurts women.

Realisti -It's about time you stop painting the myth of the heroic monogamous woman. Here, read these Yahoo Answers posts by armies of women who are discussing their affairs, and their planned ditching of hubbies in exchange for higher-status lovers:

In your dreams. Majority of women will never say yes to that kind of things. But of course you can dream of having some harem. It just won't happen in real life"

Fwiw. I was referring to primative cultures--not modern ones. The argument is that today's hook up culture is reverting to soft polygamy and serial monogamy. My point is that men are born to chase women and traditonal Christian teaching deals with that issue. I'm married to one woman and I like it that way.

The paradox is that Western women and feminists NEVER complain about Islamic polygamy or restrictions in their lives. For example, British swimming pools now have restricted to "women only" swimming hours for Muslim women, and non-Muslim women MUST wear the burqini, that covers all skin. Including a swimming cap. Feminists applaud this, as they do polygamy (see Ehrenreich along with other feminists) and indeed Islamism.

Feminists and women in the West don't find Islam a threat. Despite its very restrictive attitudes towards women's sexuality and freedom. Rather they find Christianity a threat, wanting to eliminate the ability to "share" dominant, Alpha men.

Men like say, John Edwards. Or Tony Villaraigosa. Or Gavin Newsome. Or Bill Clinton, who won more admiration from women post-Monica Lewinsky than before her. Women like soft-polygamy, because it allows them to "share" the men they want. Women unlike men will share mates. They don't like it, they'd rather have exclusive access, but they would rather have a portion of Bill Clinton than all of say, an average guy.

Women who actually live under hard polygamy despise it. They are its harshest critics. It is indeed harmful to women. But Western women are different, and find they share an enemy with Islam: traditional Christianity and the Beta Male. Both of whom most single young women hate. Lady Gaga in my new post is probably representative of most young single women -- they'd love to turn most beta men gay.

"The paradox is that Western women and feminists NEVER complain about Islamic polygamy or restrictions in their lives. For example, British swimming pools now have restricted to "women only" swimming hours for Muslim women, and non-Muslim women MUST wear the burqini, that covers all skin. Including a swimming cap. Feminists applaud this, as they do polygamy (see Ehrenreich along with other feminists) and indeed Islamism."

To be honest, I have been wondering the same thing. But...I have also noticed (even more)that many feminists and women seem to IMAGINE that when muslims arrive to Europe they change their values like they would put a new shirt on. I mean that many feminists and women seem to think that: "oh, they have a little bit patriachal culture now but when we nurture them enough they will be just as secular as we are and share the same values of equality."

I listened one radio programme yesterday and there was one woman talking about muslims and their attitudes towards women and integration overall. 20-30 minutes of the programme was reasonable speech (equal society is a great thing and should be susteined) but then she started to say things like that all borders of countries are artificial and every person should have a right to live wherever he wants. So how can we keep our equal society this way if every person has a right to come here? How can this stay the same if we don't strain people who come here and simply let those out who don't fit our norm?

That is the problem with many women. They are too naive when it comes these things. Many women seem to think that no matter how much we take people from Middle East our country still will be the same and we somehow manage to integrate them. (Truth is that people from certain cultures just can not be integrated, no matter how much we want that. Of course there are exceptions but still).

So I would not say that women necessarily applaud for ex.muslims' polygamy. (not at least I ;)) They just imagine in a naive way that every person will be like us. And they also think that if we keep out mouth shut all those problems will go away...But it won't happen. I think that most women just don't have balls to raise these issues on front. Instead they make new rules about what is not allowed to say...Christianity can be critisized because it's not racism...

Whisky:"Men like say, John Edwards. Or Tony Villaraigosa. Or Gavin Newsome. Or Bill Clinton, who won more admiration from women post-Monica Lewinsky than before her. Women like soft-polygamy, because it allows them to "share" the men they want. Women unlike men will share mates. They don't like it, they'd rather have exclusive access, but they would rather have a portion of Bill Clinton than all of say, an average guy."

Yeh, I got what you mean. But when it is about HARD polygamy, then it is not so nice anymore...I am 100 % sure that if Lewinsky would like to have a family with kids and a REAL relationship she would not settle for polygamy relationship. She would rather take a man who belongs only to herself and her kids. I think that soft polygamy might work for a romance/an adventure, but not anymore when it is about family life and serious commitment.

And by the way...Lewinsky (not to mention about Hillary Clinton) got emotionally really hurt by that "adventure." She told that afterwards. And Hillary did not let Bill to sleep in the same bed...was it for a year? At least it was a long time.

Puma said... Realisti -It's about time you stop painting the myth of the heroic monogamous woman. Here, read these Yahoo Answers posts by armies of women who are discussing their affairs, and their planned ditching of hubbies in exchange for higher-status lovers:

Yeh when it is about AFFAIRS and LOVERS. But how about when it is about FAMILY LIFE, kids and serious commitment? Then it won't work anymore. Then it's not nice anymore. Besides for the men. Majority of women get married (like men too) and they are just happy with their average guy who is not a millionaire.

I'm not sure. Charles Murray (Bell Curve) has posted on the AEI blog that his preliminary research shows 20% of births among White Middle Class women are single mothers, and 40% among Working Class White women are single mothers.

That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single motherhood, where guys come and go, and the important thing is mother-child. Like the Ghetto Black community, basically, or British Chav.

I don't think we are there yet, but trend lines seem indicate that is the destination.

On the USSC, here is a recent article by the relatively liberal Ca. Bar Association:http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/July2009&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/2009-08_TH_01_supremecourt.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines

J. Kennedy is a moderate conservative, in line with a lot of that generation of California Republicans; I wouldn't classify him as a liberal. Swing partially bche's a moderate conservative unlike J.Scalia or J.Thomas.

I'm not sure. Charles Murray (Bell Curve) has posted on the AEI blog that his preliminary research shows 20% of births among White Middle Class women are single mothers, and 40% among Working Class White women are single mothers.

That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single motherhood, where guys come and go, and the important thing is mother-child. Like the Ghetto Black community, basically, or British Chav.

I don't think we are there yet, but trend lines seem indicate that is the destination.

So people divorce only because woman must have higher status male? I don't think so. Women divorce from their men because they (men) are not reliable or the marriage does not work in some other way. Cheating is one major reason why people divorce.

Of course there are women (somewhere) out there who have too high expectations towards men but I don't think these are majority. If I look at the people I know for example, I notice that ordinary people have formed couples with other ordinary people, and there is no a single woman who excepts her man to be a millionaire. And I don't know any woman who has given birth to her child without having a man besides her. No one.

And many of the single mothers who make kids outside marriage are often those who fall in "bad boys". And those bad boys definitely are not men with lots of money and powerful position.

That would to me indicate a shift. Towards single motherhood, where guys come and go, and the important thing is mother-child.

Women could then demand government subsidy and tap the wealth of all men, not just the father of the child. Ideal, as far as feminists are concerned. As a bonus, they could crow about how independent they are. Seriously, I've seen welfare mothers say that.